Cuffsy,
Got that.
I was being picky.
Tarring religious types (from extreme to moderate) is not the same as tarring all religions with the same brush.
I got what you meant, I was just making that small correction for those who might not be familiar with the opinions of the 4 horsemen.

Marcus,
'Delusional' only if stubbornly denying evidence. See e.g. Francis Collins. But we are all capable of denial and compartmentalisationism (I now realise I have been on this site for too long cos I've learnt how to create Americanisationalisms).

Others are simply misinformed / indoctrinated. Was Newton delusional or just accepting of established 'facts' that were 'known' at the time?

Well there is a difference between the time Newton "accepted" religion. As far as I know he thought the pope is the antichrist, as the late Hitchens said "might have been up to something". Every time the religions say this one believed and this one believed that, I think, well the church used to burn people who said they do not believe, but today we know better.

In the time of the internet ignorance is a choice, I think for someone who never had what the theist call faith it is simply not possible to imagine.

Maybe it is like with a person blind from birth, you can never describe colors her. But someone who lost his eyesight remembers colors and he knows what you are talking about. So maybe I try to understand something what is not knowable for me

As for the topic at hand, I like the way the late Christopher Hitchens put it. Mockery of religion is a great thing, because it helps demystifying what is thought to be sacred and holy by many. I respect everyone's right to believe whatever he wants, as long as his beliefs doesn't interfere with my freedom or that of anyone else. I wouldn't mind religious people in politics, for example, if their beliefs wouldn't influence their choices to such an extent that they influence an entire country. Imagine how common homosexual marriage would be by know if it wasn't for the religious right. And that's not even something that is unique in the USA. Even in Germany, the only parties that oppose gay marriage, you guessed it, are the religious parties CDU and CSU, both of whom get voted by a large number of conservative Christians. It's a shame that religion still has so much influence in the world after the Age of Enlightenment, although I'm confident that it will lose most of it's power in the decades to come. News like the article of the newspaper Welt are reassuring in that aspect. From my own experience I can confirm what it talks about, that the youth all over the world is getting much less religious and especially in Europe. The number of religious teenagers I've met in my life can be counted at the fingers of one hand.

With that said, if religious peeps mind their own goddamn (pun intended) business and stop trying to force their religious laws on a secular state, I'll leave 'em alone. For now it looks like that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

A bit of mockery can't hurt, and I'm convinced that atheism is morally superior to theism. (I should try to make a habit of avoiding the term religion, as religion doesn't necessarily have to be theistic)

But, we ought to be gentle and caring when handling theists. I have noticed that others, and even I, have tended to get defensive and stubborn when their religion, and my religion, were attacked. And it kept me identifying with Catholicism, one could perhaps compare it to people who sympathize with the underdogs.

What does seem to be effective, at least in my experience, is to confront people with inconsistencies and abject verses in the bible. Just point at them, and ask why. Look into exegeses together You're quite likely to find things that are even more repulsive or anti-scientific in them (patristics, the Talmud, the writings of Luther, ...) And it never hurts to know more about scripture, because after everything that has happened, happens and will happen, they're still the origin of a lot of
our culture. As someone studying art history, it's actually crucial for me to know the Bible well.

In my case, I've been dishonest to myself. I was mainly into Catholicism for the smells and bells. I had hoped to find an alternative in that book written by Alain de Botton, but he rarely gives concrete answers. Perhaps I should do that myself.

Oh, and above all, do research whatever you claim about the religion you mock or attack. The "truth" (bad word choice, isn't it?) is often far more nuanced than one would think.

(03-12-2012 03:09 PM)Tetrarch Wrote: A bit of mockery can't hurt, and I'm convinced that atheism is morally superior to theism.

I have to disagree with you on this point. Atheism is not morally superior to theism because it has nothing to do with morality. If you want to compare secular morals to religious morals, you should be comparing secular humanism with theism. I think making the distinction between atheism and secular humanism is important; the former term is being misunderstood frequently enough as it is.

(03-12-2012 03:09 PM)Tetrarch Wrote: A bit of mockery can't hurt, and I'm convinced that atheism is morally superior to theism.

I have to disagree with you on this point. Atheism is not morally superior to theism because it has nothing to do with morality. If you want to compare secular morals to religious morals, you should be comparing secular humanism with theism. I think making the distinction between atheism and secular humanism is important; the former term is being misunderstood frequently enough as it is.

Point taken, though in that case, we should specify theism as well. And I'm not sure if I am a good representative of secular humanism, don't put that burden on me, friend!

Ahem.

A bit of mockery can't hurt, and I'm convinced that secular humanist values are morally superior to the values often espoused by (theistic) religions, especially the Abrahamic religions with which I'm familiar.

(03-12-2012 03:35 PM)Vosur Wrote: I have to disagree with you on this point. Atheism is not morally superior to theism because it has nothing to do with morality. If you want to compare secular morals to religious morals, you should be comparing secular humanism with theism. I think making the distinction between atheism and secular humanism is important; the former term is being misunderstood frequently enough as it is.

Point taken, though in that case, we should specify theism as well. And I'm not sure if I am a good representative of secular humanism, don't put that burden on me, friend!

Ahem.

A bit of mockery can't hurt, and I'm convinced that secular humanist values are morally superior to the values often espoused by (theistic) religions, especially the Abrahamic religions with which I'm familiar.

(02-12-2012 04:49 PM)fstratzero Wrote: Typically the more intelligent a person is the more they engage in something called rationalization.

They are simply more capable of defending their positions and lying to themselves.

What is the definite answer here?

I got the opposite proposition from someone else on this forum stating somthing to the affect of: "All you need to do to get out of your religion is to become more educated."

Something is inconsitent here.

Perhaps there is a middle area where people are in "just the right spot" as far as knowledge.
This concept would throw me so far off if it were true, but I am highly inclined to believe otherwise.
I believe greater knowledge is something to be treasured.
I believe greater knowledge can possibly lead one closer to the truth about reality.
I also believe that people can be extremely intelligent and still be wrong about something so fundamental about reality.
That goes for religious and non-religious.

So you're saying that a highly intelligent person is rationalizing to a point of lying to themselves?
This is only true if the person knows otherwise to be true.
A person lying to themselves is intentionally believing a false proposition.

We may differ here, but I believe that these people that you're referring to have a different perspective that perhaps is indeed brought on by their volume of intelligence. This is to say that they have rationalized to a point that their belief is consitent with the vast knowledge they may have at the current point.

That is far different from one lying to oneself.

As an Atheist, you have concluded to your viewpoint using the knowledge and rationalization you had and currently have.
What would we say in the chance that Theism is true? That Atheists have just been lying to themselves?
I don't think so. Atheists rationalize to the same degree that any other normal person does - just to a different objective.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

The question of respecting a religious organisation is vastly different than respecting her membership. There are very serious issues with many if not all of the religious institutions. There's a very serious question as to whether or not the cultural wisdom of a religion can be extricated from the institution, but all of that is for another thread.

In terms of respecting people, I offer this.

As a preface, I find it necessary to caution you to avoid the hate mongering present in many of the responses so far. Reasonable people don't allow themselves to be swayed by demagoguery. Go down that path at your peril, for you will forfeit your claim to reason.

There is a popular notion that evolution is heading somewhere. That there's a destination. This is not at all true. There is no destination, there is no ultimate pinnacle. So it is with culture. You may not agree with another culture, you may not find it sensical, but it is what all cultures are; an expression of humanity's attempt at understanding of and relationship with the world.

Look at the fictional Vulcans. Pure logic. Pure reason. Yet they are so cut off from the world of emotion and intuition. It's far from perfection. Look at the world with purely rational eyes is fine, it has all kinds of benefits, but it is not THE WAY that humans were meant to interact with the world. As Wade Davis says, the six or seven thousand languages and associated cultures of the world are all unique attempts to answer the question, what does it mean to be human and alive.

You see faith, superstition, mythology and you think, "That's incorrect." And within the context of your culture, an Atheist culture that gives primacy to science, you're correct. But that is a culturally biased view. It assumes that just because it doesn't jive with your cultural view that it is somehow invalidated.